Posted on 05/10/2008 11:35:03 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
There's been much convinced talk that John McCain needs to add diversity to his ticket by choosing someone who's black, or at least brown (and Brown!) for the v.p. slot.
But wouldn't that cost McCain his advantage among racists? In the current issue of TNR, John Judis estimates that Obama's race could cost him as much as "15 to 20 percent of Democrats or Democratic-leaning Independents," and Politico's Roger Simon thinks the race vote is worth upwards of 15 percent among the general electorate.
By adding diversity to his ticket, McCain would just jeopardize his hold on these voters, while reaping few rewards. It's not like McCain can out-diverse Barack Obama: Those committed to voting for a black candidate will probably stick with the one at the top of the ticket. Meanwhile, racism knows no hierarchy--a black v.p. might dampen the enthusiasm of erstwhile racist McCain voters, while doing nothing to cut into Obama's support.
Thus, McCain would risk alienating the voters most constitutionally opposed to Obama; dilute the glue that's held together the Nixon coalition for forty years; and forego a perennial Republican advantage at precisely the time when it could prove most potent--all in service of a chimeric, squishy concept that many Republicans hate, diversity.
McCain is currently in the doghouse with many race-conscious wingers for pushing immigration reform. It would be politically safe--though clearly not moral or progressive--for McCain to keep mending fences on that front, rather than bow to elite pressure for a colorized ticket.
<...if he had a Conservative veep...>
Exactly. I don’t care about skin color. I care about conservatism and whether the person is emotionally and morally stable.
There are a number of black conservatives who would be excellent VPs.
Yes, there are; Michael Steele, JC Watts, and a few other people I could vote for. The question is one of whether at this stage they would be maligned as racially motivated choices. Either way, though, we need a VPOTUS candidate who is to the Right of McCain on the issues.
I thought we weren’t allowed to post anything from theonion.com.
I agree with that. He doesn’t NEED a Black or Diversified VP.
But bitter bloc and jilted ladies are up for grabs.
If GOP has any brain cells still functional they ought to take advantage of it in LEAST OFFENSIVE WAY.
Also, ANTI-BLACK RACIMS is extremely prevalent amongst Hispanics, Asians, and pretty much all other minorities.
Hispanics seem to prefer White over Black for sure.
HIS DREAM CHOICE WOULD BE - RELATIVELY YOUNG, VIBRANT, LIKEABLE, EXPERIENCED, INSPIRING SPEAKER, WORKING CLASS, WHITE-HISPANIC, OVARY.
And the funny thing is, many of the ultracons who will refuse to vote for McCain will vote for Keyes. Some racism.
The sad thing is, if he were to pick a good, conservative VP who is black, everyone would think he picked him because he’s black - not because he’s the best candidate. Sad but true.
The thing I hate most about Microsoft is the ease with which they’ve enabled twits and morons like Smith, here, to get on the Internet.
What's irritating is that the political term “right” means something very different in America, yet the left tries to lump the American right in with the statist European right. In Europe the right originally meant the Monarchists, who defended the status quo of 18th and 19th century Europe. In America those were the Tories, and they were kicked out after the Revolution. So conservatives defending he status quo here are defending the classic Liberalism of Locke and Jefferson upon which the country was founded.
The left is the same in both places, Marxist and neo-Marxists. They find it convenient to equate the American right with the European right. And while Communism is also totalitarian, it's ideology is classed based instead of race/nation based. That's why it's considered left-wing, and Nazism is genrally considered right win.
I am getting ticked at the racist stuff. Bambi makes me sick, not because of his color but for a lot or reasons. I thought he was kind of cute until I heard his words and met his friends.
That makes no sense. The Nazis were National Socialists. They were just more militant then today’s leftists. They threatened to nationalize companies unless they did as they were told just like in Chavezland or Russia. I generally agree with the rest of what you said but Hitler and his ilk stood for the same thing the far left do, control of the economy, control of the people and eliminating everyone they disagree with.
McCain is planning on winning without the Conservatives. His secret weapon is not much of a secret. It’s Joe Lieberman.
They’re best friends. Joe is already to the right of a number of serving RINOs in the Senate. Being Jewish, he’s a strong supporter of Israel and a minority (sort of) in his own right.
Joe Lieberman will peel the Jewish vote away from the Democrats — they’re not going to support Obama anyhow. He will also appeal to a huge chunk of moderate Democrats who kinda like McCain anyhow because he is seen as the epitome of a moderate Republican.
That’s my bet anyhow. The day we see the photo op of Joe heading down to the county courthouse to put an “R” behind his name, you’ll know the fix is in.
The reason the Dims are in their current mess is that they are a multi-tribal party and the African-American segment has outvoted the feminist segment. That’s what comes when the object is to “make history” by electing the first whatever - instead of seeking the most qualified.
Most qualified? B.O. is a joke, an empty suit with a lot of sleazy baggage. Hillary is indefatigable but has run a stupid campaign staffed by loyal incompetents.
If Obama is the candidate then it absolutely makes no sense trying to have an African American VP - it will bring no votes. In 2000 Bush tried very hard to get AA votes but failed miserably. No Republican in this climate will get any, and unfortunately, there are voters in the South (some Republican and some Democratic) that will not vote for a ticket with an AA on it - no matter who that person is.
Strictly from racial/gender politics the best selection would be a relatively young Latino female, but the Republican party does not have a qualified one available. The next step would be a non-Latino female (Rice is qualified, but is tainted by Bush’s globalism, and I suspect she would not be much of a politician - she also will not bring any Latino votes). I am not so sure about others (Dole and Hutchinson being Senators do not bring the executive experience you would like). Most of the other female Republican governors are too inexperienced or are from small/out of play states. Whitman is a nuclear industry lobbyist now. - She may be an interesting choice to consider if you want to walk away from Bush. She, like McCain, believes global warming is a problem.
If you just want to grab the Latino side then possibly Mel Martinez? He has some executive experience to go along with being a Senator. Then again in racial politics it seems you have Cuban Latinos and everything else. I don’t think the Republicans have an everything else.
Last on the list are white men. Those with executive experience include Romney, Huckabee, and Giuliani. Then you have a whole bunch of current governors (Perry, Sanford, Barbour, Jindal, Pawlenty).
If Hillary somehow manages to steal nomination, then I would try to make a play for the AA vote (possibly Rice or a call to Powell). The other possibilities, while fine individuals with future possibilities probably do not have the resume to be President (J.C. Watts, Michael Steele, and Ken Blackwell). Watts is making money now in the private sector, but Bush should have found a role for him in the cabinet.
If you cross the aisle then of course there is Lieberman which would insure at 1east 10% vote for a 3rd party ticket (such as Barr Libertarian). Coulter brought up the possibility of Hillary Clinton if she really wants to make those dumb Democrats pay for not nominating her.
I bet the amount of Dems that cross over will be closer to 35%.
Democrats are the real racists and it will show in November.
How about a conservative,black lesbian with one leg.Covers all the bases.
I hope you don’t think that I think a VP should be selected this way, but racial identity is a factor in getting votes. If the Republicans had a female conservative black with one leg who had been a governor for at least 4 years and had some legislative (or business experience) before that then I would say go for it (except maybe make it a non-Cuban Latino this year). I think being a lesbian (at least a declared lesbian) would be a deal breaker for the Republican party. I personally would not have a problem with a homosexual/lesbian so long as they just said its none of your business what I do in my bedroom if they are asked.
No just a joke I used once about affirmative action.
I would just like to see a conservative period.
Chickens, meet Roost.
The author is calling 15 to 20% of DEMOCRATS racist, lest that "minor little point" get by us all.
Thus, McCain would risk alienating the voters most constitutionally opposed to Obama; dilute the glue that's held together the Nixon coalition for forty years; and forego a perennial Republican advantage at precisely the time when it could prove most potent--all in service of a chimeric, squishy concept that many Republicans hate, diversity.
Where do I start? The Nixon coalition? WTF? That's sure painting a LOT of people with a broad brush, assuming there's any meaning at all to that term. And yes, every truly sentient being hates the chimeric, squishy concept of "diversity" for diversity's sake.
I remember a company I used to work for that had a diversity vision statement that said "We value differences as assets". Anybody who values differences as asssets never had to work on a British sports car.
McCain is currently in the doghouse with many race-conscious wingers for pushing immigration reform.
My Mexican-American buddy and his wife that I visted with yesterday for about an hour might just disagree that I'm a racist. Them and my four African-American nieces and nephews, and my Chinese shooting buddies who are always begging me to take them to the range. Just guessing.
How about he's in the dog house with those of us who believe in the rule of law, and don't believe in risking destroying the culture of the greatest country mankind's ever seen by allowing unrestricted immigration in the name of "fairness"? What about the people who are already here, who built this country, and have to pay the taxes to build these liberal Utopias?
This article is just beyond bizarre. The author admits it’s Dem voters who are racist, yet he proposes McCain’s selection of a black running mate would jeopardize their votes. This is liberal double speak at it’s best, trying to tar the Republican candidate with the Dem voters racism. Like I said, bizarre.
"I'm voting for the white guy." - Racism...
As long as it's a right leg. I hate those damned left-legged conservative, black lesbians...
Only if you use the "old" (like, from 20 years ago) definition of racist. The new and improved definition classifies you as a racist if you are merely against any preferential treatment based on race.
So, to avoid being labeled racist (and denied positions or jobs in government, education and enlightened corporations) by the new and improved definition, you need to become a racist by the old definition, with only color hierarchy flipped upside-down.
“McCain Doesn’t Need A Black Veep”
No, he needs a conservative in order to ATTEMPT to balance the ticket.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.